"Quick" solid bench for a friend

[bugbear]

That's it - with stretcher and legs flush to the front edge of top, the whole front 'plane' is a clamping surface - vital for working edges of big boards, doors etc. This is a Chris Schwarz 'mantra' and I would say he knows a lot about what makes a good bench.

Other (equally respected) people are against it; Landis makes a good presentation on the pros and cons. Robert Wearing is probably the most persuasive advocate of "non flush" - essentially more versatile.

BugBear

 

[theartfulbodger]

More food for thought!

Thank you I think, BugBear, I'll have a google for Landis and Wearing..more food for thought! :shock:

Happily with this bench plan flush looks easier, so I'm going to build it that way. My mate doesn't read the forum so I should be safe 8)

 

[Benchwayze]

Hmmm...
I think it's a case of 'speak as you find', so someone must have upset someone! The trouble is, the things that upset people are as varied as the people who become upset?
Something like that.

As to the Bench:

My present bench has an overhanging edge, and much as I can see Chris Schwartz's thinking, I don't often work on full size doors.
I find the overhang of my bench extremely useful for using 'G' clamps, to hold down workpieces. But of course my excellent holdfasts from RichardT are ideal for that job too! So either way my 'bench-slave' is redundant, to be replaced by a sliding deadman. Depending on the amount of overhang, I don't see how it would definitely preclude a sliding deadman. It would just mean you need longer supports to use with it.

Edit: Before someone asks, how would I deal with the void behind a wide board?

I could machine a temporary leg (with dog-holes) as a 'filler-block', to clamp to the right-hand front leg of the bench to flush it out level with the top. Maybe fix it with Earth Magnets, so it's easily removable. If the magnets are strong enough of course. :mrgreen:

John

 

[Jacob]

My favourite (theoretical) work bench is the Japanese planing beam. Basically just a big beam which is heavy and stiff enough to plane on, or to fix workpieces to in a solid and stable way. Here's a westernised version - lifted off the floor and braced against the wall. I found it here.

The basic trad british bench could be seen as two planing beams separated by the well (to keep your tools and bits in whilst you are on the job) all supported by two frames/trestles etc well braced (typically by a deep front apron).
Or if you only work from one side then one beam will do, with a rail at the back (to close the well) set at same height as the beam so that workpieces can be spanned across.
Everything else is an add on or detail design - vices etc.

One of the worst possible benches is the workmate, on which it is almost impossible to plane or saw (without bracing or other strategies) but they are handy as a mobile holding device, step-on etc. Good place to start thinking "benches" though i.e. not to make the same mistakes!

A work table is a different thing altogether, but the natural thing is to try to combine them. But it's handy to separate the functions, in your mind at least i.e. work table and/or solid beam/structure for holding things stably when being worked upon.

PS I just moved this post to the other workbench thread where it's a better fit! Just moved it back again. Two threads - more or less the same issues.

 

[bugbear]

The basic trad british bench could be seen as two planing beams separated by the well (to keep your tools and bits in whilst you are on the job) all supported by two frames/trestles etc well braced (typically by a deep front apron).

Yes - In one (and only one) of my many inter-war books, in the inevitable second chapter on "first build your bench", the large front timber of the bench is actually termed the "planing beam". It's not a common usage, though.

It's certainly quite common to see English bench designs where the front timber of the bench top is massive (say 8" wide by 3" thick), but the rest of the benchtop is much thinner stuff, packed up on the rail (or with a stepped rail) to give a flat surface (apart from the well, of course).

The biggest difference with the Japanese planing beam is the way the far end is supported against a pretty much immovable object (typically a wall or tree)

BugBear

 

[Benchwayze]

I have been mulling this over. It struck me that with the Roubo, another reason for a flush-face bench might be the massive thickness of the top. Such a thick piece of timber would need constant use of the larger, and heavier 'G' cramps to hold work down in the normal fashion. So what better way than holdfasts, where a huge, slabby top is concerned? And if you are morticing a heavy 4" or 5" square leg, you might even have to resort to a short sash cramp to get the reach. . In my case I might be able to sit on it!!!


Well it is just an idea folks. :mrgreen:

John 8)

 

[condeesteso]

A few points if I may
I am very firmly an advocate of flush front (as is already known) but here are 3 quick examples why:

here's a typical kitchen door supported under by a dog, but fully supported behind too, noting that when working at a bench actions and forces will tend to be across (along its length) downwards, and into the bench (i.e. forward). So good support behind is good.

I think it's important to note a deadman is flush to the front. I could not conceive it having any use otherwise.
Here's a big ash board, supported by vice and a holdfast, noting the stock isn't resting on the holdfast, it's the clamping force holding it and the vice was tightened after setting the holdfast. The deadman is 2" thick and the holdfast works rock solid.

And here's a 3 x 4 ash mounted to cut a double tenon. Supported all the way down:

These are just examples to show why I like flush front. I cannot see how these pieces would be clamped anywhere near as well (if at all) with legs and stretcher set back.
And I don't get the point re g-clamping on the edge of the top - whether the legs are flush or not you can do that. It's aprons that ruin clamping that way, not flush construction. (I don't like aprons much either).
And if you fancy a 6" thick Roubo, but use holdfasts, you just counterbore from the underside a 1", so the holdfast sees the optimum 3/4 hole depth (probably around 60mm).

 

[Jacob]

Mine hasn't got a flush front but I don't think I'm missing anything - I just do things differently. That long board - I would probably rest the end on a saw stool or an ammo box, or clamp it to the apron. The ammo box (if that is what it was) is 12" x 18" x 24" which gives three convenient heights, including for sitting on or using as a step up, not to mention carrying tools in.

 

[Benchwayze]

Yes Doug.. You can clamp on the edge of any bench. But with the typical thick top of the Roubo design, you would have to use bigger, and heavier clamps. That's the point I was trying to make. So, I have some hold-fasts which work better on a thick top.

regards
John

 

[condeesteso]

Hi John, sorry, I did not mean to question your point re the top thickness. I think that is a different debate with pros and cons. My thing is just about setting legs and stretcher back... I have listed reasons not to, but have no arguments in favour. As a slight aside from this, I can't remember the last time I used a clamp to fix a workpiece to the top, from the front (I mean a G-clamp type thing). What shape would that workpiece be, and what would I be trying to do with it... I wonder.

 

[Benchwayze]

Yes Doug!

Well I am probably going to have a flush front after all, mainly because the thick top makes it look better that way. But definitely NO apron!

Cheers
John (hammer)

 

[bugbear]

Yes Doug!

Well I am probably going to have a flush front after all, mainly because the thick top makes it look better that way. But definitely NO apron!

Cheers
John (hammer)

Main disadvantage of flush front is difficulty of fitting a Q/R vise, and difficulty in replacing a worn rear jaw on the vise - the rear jaw is commonly the front member of the bench top in flush front designs.

But there's pros and cons in all bench designs, which is why discussing them is fun, and different people, with differing requirments, can quite reasonably choose different designs.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

Mine hasn't got a flush front but I don't think I'm missing anything - I just do things differently. That long board - I would probably rest the end on a saw stool or an ammo box, or clamp it to the apron. The ammo box (if that is what it was) is 12" x 18" x 24" which gives three convenient heights, including for sitting on or using as a step up, not to mention carrying tools in.

PS and the vertical piece I would hold in the vice.
Apron is handy in that you can clamp or screw things on for extra support or particular jobs.
A basic design problem (for most things) is that the more you match the design to a particular function, the more you limit the possibility of other functions. Keeping it simple also leaves it open for adaptation.
Metal dogs are bad news - chipped tool edges. Go the extra inch and use wood!

 

[Benchwayze]

I suppose you have a point BB.

But one could overlay a further piece of timber to form a rear jaw. (Could be 18" wide so it looks continuous. Not glued in of course.) Reducing the thickness of the front jaw, would maintain the maximum gape of the vice.

The rear jaw of my last vice was a wide one and captured the metal within timber. Because most vices are deeper than the thickness of my benchtop, I need a packing piece under the bench. The thick top will remove this need, and recessing the metal into the face of the bench will also hide metal from my cutting tools!

John

 

[Jacob]

Thinking about it - there is a disadvantage in a flush front and/or rear of vice being flush. If you use the vice to hold something which isn't dead flat then it's going to be deformed by being pressed against the bench front e.g. condeesto's long board. If you want to plane it true then it needs to be just nipped tight at the vice but otherwise not stressed or strained. To avoid stressing it, you'd have to pack out the back of the vice. It might as well be like that permanently.
Same problem with hold downs on the top. Better to do most things with the workpiece lying loose , against a stop or across bench hooks.

 

[Benchwayze]

I also thought about making a 'door' with two longer pieces parallel with the stiles, These would provide thickness, for the dog-holes to be bored. If I then bought a piece of ready made worktop, and fixed that to each side of the 'door-frame' in a sandwich, Could I call that a kind of 'torsion-box' construction? :?

Was it Ian Kirby who mistrusted dogs, for precisely that reason Jacob? I have a feeling I read somewhere, that he had a discussion with Frank Klausz on this,. Klausz of course champions the trad European cabinetmaker's bench.

John

 

[RickCarpenter]

I tried laminating two 18mm ply boards to make a thicker top, it was hell. Could not get enough clamping force across the boards to make them really tight and it's not really a one person job.

Keep an eye on eBay for some old wooden worktop.

Mick

You could run some screws from the bottom, then back them out after the glue dries.

 

[MickCheese]

I tried laminating two 18mm ply boards to make a thicker top, it was hell. Could not get enough clamping force across the boards to make them really tight and it's not really a one person job.

Keep an eye on eBay for some old wooden worktop.

Mick

You could run some screws from the bottom, then back them out after the glue dries.

I did pepper it with screws but they would not pull it up tight enough and a few just broke.

Mick

 

[Jacob]

....
Was it Ian Kirby who mistrusted dogs, for precisely that reason Jacob? ....
John

Dunno. But any metal work on the top is going to get dinged with a plane blade or a chisel, sooner or later.

Instead of struggling away trying to make up bench tops with the wrong materials why not go and get the right ones?
A lot of the struggle seems to be in attempting to emulate the continental style bench. The Brit style is much simpler and works really well. The "quick solid bench" in fact. It's not as fashionable but it could get you into doing woodwork a lot faster! Once you have one you could then think about making a continental version, but you probably wouldn't bother by then.

Don't be a fashion victim - aprons are essential, softwood is OK, no need to be solid all the way across, wells are useful, etc.
Brit benches are best!

 

[Benchwayze]

....
Was it Ian Kirby who mistrusted dogs, for precisely that reason Jacob? ....
John

Dunno. But any metal work on the top is going to get dinged with a plane blade or a chisel, sooner or later.

Instead of struggling away trying to make up bench tops with the wrong materials why not go and get the right ones?
A lot of the struggle seems to be in attempting to emulate the continental style bench. The Brit style is much simpler and works really well. The "quick solid bench" in fact. It's not as fashionable but it could get you into doing woodwork a lot faster! Once you have one you could then think about making a continental version, but you probably wouldn't bother by then.

Don't be a fashion victim - aprons are essential, softwood is OK, no need to be solid all the way across, wells are useful, etc.
Brit benches are best!

Thanks Jacob.

In my own case, an apron would be a hindrance. If it had an apron it would mean I couldn't have a cupboard under the bench. Or, if there was a cupboard it wouldn't be very high, and the inaccessible space behind the apron would be a dust trap. When I was a sapling I could have managed the bending and reaching, but not any more!

As for fashion, all the points you make were in Kirby's argument. Klausz on the other hand being a Hungarian (I think) felt the tail-vice was essential. I think maybe we can get away with just a planing stop, and dog holes, for holdfasts.

I still can't help wondering why the big, 'Roubo' bench fell out of favour. It was either because of the scarcity of thick lumber, or that eventually the tenons through the top, dried out and caused racking.

But the quick bench is taking shape..
:wink: